Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Vaccaro
Citations
- 226 Conn. App. 75
Syllabus
The respondent attorney appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court suspending him from the practice of law for a period of ninety days as a result of his inaction while representing a client that led to the dismissal, with prejudice, of the client's personal injury lawsuit. The petitioner, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, filed a presentment complaint against the respondent, alleging the misconduct at issue after a reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee conducted a hearing and concluded that the respondent had violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the grievance complaint, in which he claimed that he was denied his right to due process and prejudiced as a result of numerous, extensive delays in the adjudication of the complaint. The reviewing committee denied that motion and then proceeded with the remainder of the hearing on the misconduct complaint. The reviewing committee found that there was no evidence that the respondent had suffered any prejudice and concluded that his violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct war- ranted a reprimand. The reviewing committee further determined that it was required to direct the petitioner to file the presentment pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 2-47 (d) (1)) because the respondent had received three disciplinary reprimands in the five years prior to the filing of the grievance complaint at issue. The Statewide Grievance Committee upheld the reviewing committee's decision. The respondent did not appeal from either of those rulings. At the presentment hearing, the trial court stated that it was bound by the findings of the reviewing committee and that, pursuant to Practice Book § 2-47 (d) (1), the hearing was limited to determining the penalty to be imposed. The court stated that it considered the totality of the circumstances in fashioning its penalty and noted the respondent's lack of a sense of responsibility for the
Judges: Elgo; Prescott; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.